Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Influence of ethics on religion
Relationship between religion and morality
Relationship between religion and morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Influence of ethics on religion
Is belief in the existence of a supremely perfect deity compatible or incompatible with natural and moral evil? Justify your answer. Work with Hick and Mackie.
Introduction
The question on the existence of an omnipotent God has been subject to debate by various philosophers over time, among them being John Hick and J.L. Mickie. One point of contention has been whether it was possible to have an omnipotent deity and at the same time have evil existing in the world.
In this paper, the focus shall be a discussion as to whether believing in a supremely perfect deity is compatible or incompatible with natural and moral evil. The discussion shall be guided by the works of both John Hick and J.L. Mackie.
Natural and Moral Evil
The concept of evil has been recognized by philosopher and theologians as either moral or
…show more content…
It is normally referred to as non-moral evil. Being dependent on nature, this type of evil is therefore not affected by the person’s activities or his free will. Destructive hurricanes and floods caused by extreme weather conditions are two examples of natural evil because they are caused by nature and therefore a person can not do anything about them.
Compatibility or Incompatibility of belief in God with Natural and Moral Evil
According to Mackie’s 1955 article, Evil and Omnipotence, the belief in a supremely perfect deity who is all-powerful and all-good would not co-exist with evil. He notes that on the face of it such an omnipotent and benevolent God would not allow evil to exist at all. He further notes that human beings only solve the problem of evil by either abandoning the traditional beliefs about God. For example, to explain why God would allow evil to exist in the world, then a person would have to abandon the belief that God is omnipotent and instead accept the belief that God has limited powers which therefore leave Him unable to prevent
There are two general types of evil. There is natural evil and moral evil (Erickson, 2000, p.437). Natural evil does not involve the willingness or actions of man. It is simply a part of nature that seems to create an obstacle against the well-being of man. Examples of natural evil would be tsunamis, hurric...
In the excerpt from Philosophy of Religion, John Hicks outlines the problem of evil as such:
Throughout the world, most people believe in some type of god or gods, and the majority of them understand God as all-good, all-knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent). However, there is a major objection to the latter belief: the “problem of evil” (P.O.E.) argument. According to this theory, God’s existence is unlikely, if not illogical, because a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being would not allow unnecessary suffering, of which there are enormous amounts.
The problem of evil is a deductive a priori argument who’s goal is to prove the non-existence of God. In addition to Mackie’s three main premises he also introduces some “quasi-logical” rules that give further evidence to his argument. First he presumes that a good thing will eliminate evil to the extent that it can and second, that omnipotence has no limits. From these two “additional premises,” it can be concluded that a completely good and omnipotent being will eliminate all possible evil. After establishing these added premises Mackie continues with his piece to list and negate several theistic responses to the argument.
Mackie in his paper Evil and Omnipotence, constructs an argument against the idea of the possibility of a God existing that has the characteristics laid out by the main religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. These characteristics include that God is omnipotent, or He is capable of stopping evil, and omni benevolent, or He wants to eliminate evil and He is entirely good. Mackie systematically goes through his logical thought process as well as his response to any type of criticism or alternative solution that might arise. The main point of his argument is to establish that God, as constructed by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, could not possibly exist. It is one of the most highly regarded arguments towards atheism.
Shirley Jackson’s short story “ The Possibility of Evil” is about a little old lady named Miss Strangeworth. She thinks she’s in charge of the town and to make sure it’s free from all evil because her grandfather built the first house on Pleasant Street. At first Miss Strangeworth is a nice little old lady, worrying about people and wondering what others are up to. Then in the middle of the story she becomes a little rude to a few of the townspeople. In the end Miss Strangeworth thought she was getting rid of the evil in the town, but in reality she was causing evil in the town by showing her true colors and being extremely mean and cruel to others. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover because people aren’t always what they seem to be.
There is evil. 3. So, God does not exist”. Since there is evil, then that means God does not exist. So there is no loving and powerful God. However, if there is a God then he is not all loving and powerful. Daniel Howard-Snyder states in his article “God, Evil, And Suffering,”: “We would have to say God lacks power and knowledge to such an extent that He can 't prevent evil. And there lies the trouble. For how could God have enough power and knowledge to create and sustain the physical universe if He can 't even prevent evil? How could He be the providential governor of the world if He is unable to do what even we frequently do, namely prevent evil?” (5). This statement argues that God is not all powerful because he is unable to prevent evil in the world. Daniel Howard-Snyder then argues that: “Would a perfectly good being always prevent evil as far as he can? Suppose he had a reason to permit evil, a reason that was compatible with his never doing wrong and his being perfect in love, what I 'll call a justifying reason. For example, suppose that if he prevented evil completely, then we would miss out on a greater good, a good whose goodness was so great that it far surpassed the badness of evil. In that case, he might not prevent evil as far as he can, for he would have a justifying reason to permit it” (5). Even if God had a reason to allow evil, he who is all loving and powerful would want the least amount of people to suffer and feel pain. Since God knows
In the world of the living, evil is not inherent and can change or influence a person’s aspect of the world based on the community they are in. Evil is the force of things that are morally wrong and the matter of suffering, wrongdoing and misfortune (Merriam Webster). Evil is not inherent because an evil community can change or influence a person’s way of thinking, can consume people the more they are relinquished to it, and can mold a person when a person has power or feel a certain way. Furthermore, evil can be claim as not inherent from reading about Josef Mengele, Stanley Milgram, and the Stanford Prison Experiment. I will persuade my point that evil is not inherent from the sources that depicts the claim of evil.
In, “The Problem of Evil,” Eleonore Stump holds the belief that the existence of evil in our world does not automatically disprove God’s existence. The belief that God cannot live alongside evil is considered to be the Evidential Problem of evil and this is what Stump is arguing against in her paper. Stump argues, the ability to fix our defective free will makes Union with God possible, which overwrites all the un-absorbable evils in the world, showing both God and un-absorbable evils can coexist. In this paper I hope to show that God can exist, but also show that human free will is limited.
While traditional theology has characterized God as being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, we all have seen instances of evil in the world, from the genocide currently occurring in Darfur to the mass torture seen in the Spanish Inquisition, where people have been forced to suffer at the hands of others for millennia. Mackie’s argument is that an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God has the means, knowledge and desire to prevent such instances of evil from occurring, and yet evil clearly exists. Mackie argues that the removal of any one of the ascribed characteristics would solve the problem of evil; however few theologians have been prepared to accept this as the only solution. (Mackie, 1955)
In the beginning of Mackie's work he writes a brief introduction to fully expose the problem of evil, and to set guidelines for determining whether or not the problem applies to one. Mackie states that in his work one must be prepared to believe, not only what cannot be proved, but also what can be proven wrong from other beliefs one has. From this Mackie moves on to describe that the problem applies only to individual's who believe that there is a God who is omnipotent and wholly good. Mackie sets this guideline in order to eliminate the acceptions of individual's that the problem will not apply to. Now that Mackie has set the guideline to test whether the problem is applicable, he states the problem of evil in what he calls its 'simplest form.' Mackie states the problem as; God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, and evil still exists. The problem with the phrase is that all three propositions cannot exist collectively. One can choose only two and it would cause the third to be false. Now that Mackie is nearing the end of his introduction he sets some rules concerning the terms 'good,' 'evil,' and 'omnipotent.' Mackie states that good is opposed to evil in a way that good always eliminates evil as best as it can and that...
The problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering has plagued believers since the beginning of religious thought. Atheists often site this paradox in order to demonstrate that such a god cannot exist and, therefore, that theism is an invalid position. Theodicy is a branch of philosophy that seeks to defend religion by reconciling the supposed existence of an omnipotent, perfectly just God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world. In fact, the word “theodicy” consists of the Greek words “theos,” or God, and “dike,” or justice (Knox 1981, 1). Thus, theodicy seeks to find a sense of divine justice in a world filled with suffering.
If there is truly a God and the maker of this universe did create human beings, then in this perfect world that this perfect God made, I do not just see God’s wholly good but also the bad and ugly. God must not be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then and the definition of God is false and the existence of God
This essay provides a conclusive look at the problems and contradictions underlying a belief in God and the observable traits of the world, specifically the Problem of Evil. The analysis will address the nature of God and the existence of evil in the world, as well as objections such as the "sorting" into heaven and hell objection, God's "mysterious ways" objection, the inscrutability of God objection, values presupposing pain objection, inherent contradictions in "God's freewill," and non-human objections. omnipotent. 2) Evil exists. 3)
In the light of Mackie’s argument if one accepts that evil exists, then he cannot accept God is both omnipotent and morally perfect. Thus, a solution that he proposed to this problem